State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

California Court of Appeal

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission

39 P.2d 870, 3 Cal. App. 2d 532, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 312

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 9, 1935

DocketCiv. No. 9947

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 P.2d 870 (State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident Commission, 39 P.2d 870, 3 Cal. App. 2d 532, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIL, J.

A. H. Christensen was injured while receiving work relief “as an open welfare case”. Except as to dates and names the facts are identical with those in the case of McBurney v. Industrial Acc. Com., 220 Cal. 124 [30 Pac. (2d) 414], Under the rule established in that case he was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The contention, based on recent amendments to the act which are designated as sections 8(a) and 12*4, that because Christensen was required to work and received cash as part of said aid relief, he was an employee, is fully answered by the case of County of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com., 2 Cal. App. (2d) 614 [38 Pac. (2d) 828]. As Christensen was not an employee, he was not entitled under the law to compensation.

Award annulled.

Stephens, P. J., and Willis, J., pro tem., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRAIL, J.

A. H. Christensen was injured while receiving work relief “as an open welfare case”. Except as to dates and names the facts are identical with those in the case of McBurney v. Industrial Acc. Com., 220 Cal. 124 [30 Pac. (2d) 414], Under the rule established in that case he was not an employee within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The contention, based on recent amendments to the act which are designated as sections 8(a) and 12*4, that because Christensen was required to work and received cash as part of said aid relief, he was an employee, is fully answered by the case of County of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com., 2 Cal. App. (2d) 614 [38 Pac. (2d) 828]. As Christensen was not an employee, he was not entitled under the law to compensation.

Award annulled.

Stephens, P. J., and Willis, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 P.2d 870, 3 Cal. App. 2d 532, 1935 Cal. App. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-compensation-insurance-fund-v-industrial-accident-commission-calctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack